Scientists spot a new Earthlike planet

[soulxtc]

‘Microlensing’ detects faraway world just 5.5 times bigger than our own.

Astronomers on Wednesday announced the discovery of what is possibly the smallest planet known outside our solar system orbiting a normal star.

Its orbit is farther from its host star than Earth is from the sun. Most known extrasolar planets reside inside the equivalent of Mercury’s orbit.

The planet is estimated to be about 5.5 times as massive as Earth and thought to be rocky. It orbits a red dwarf star about 28,000 light-years away. Red dwarfs are about one-fifth as massive as the sun and up to 50 times fainter. But they are among the most common stars in the universe.


READ ARTICLE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11013519/from/RSS/)

[boogiedan]

yeah , just heard this on the news

proves theres a hell of a lot more space than we think

[DigitalJunkie]

If time can be infinite, why can't space also be infinite?

[kokanezub]

space..if i run in my house im bound to hit a wall...but in space,were do u end up? there is life there is life that is more advanced and some that are less.

[notbob]

‘Microlensing’ detects faraway world just 5.5 times bigger than our own.

Astronomers on Wednesday announced the discovery of what is possibly the smallest planet known outside our solar system orbiting a normal star.

Its orbit is farther from its host star than Earth is from the sun. Most known extrasolar planets reside inside the equivalent of Mercury’s orbit.

The planet is estimated to be about 5.5 times as massive as Earth and thought to be rocky. It orbits a red dwarf star about 28,000 light-years away. Red dwarfs are about one-fifth as massive as the sun and up to 50 times fainter. But they are among the most common stars in the universe.


READ ARTICLE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11013519/from/RSS/)


a red dwarf is not a normal star

it's a red dwarf

[Auggie2k]

If time can be infinite, why can't space also be infinite?
It's so big, it practically is.

[pimpinaman]

‘Microlensing’ detects faraway world just 5.5 times bigger than our own.

Astronomers on Wednesday announced the discovery of what is possibly the smallest planet known outside our solar system orbiting a normal star.

Its orbit is farther from its host star than Earth is from the sun. Most known extrasolar planets reside inside the equivalent of Mercury’s orbit.

The planet is estimated to be about 5.5 times as massive as Earth and thought to be rocky. It orbits a red dwarf star about 28,000 light-years away. Red dwarfs are about one-fifth as massive as the sun and up to 50 times fainter. But they are among the most common stars in the universe.


READ ARTICLE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11013519/from/RSS/)

So how long would it take to get from Earth to there? Seems like it would take a REALLY long time to get there. By then the Earth will be all F-ed up, and we won't be able to check it out. And if the red dwarf is only 1/5th the size of our sun, if folks could get there , they would hope for global warming. Seems like it might be kind of a chilly place....cyrogenics to get there, and to make the temperture comfortable?

[Mels_Smileys45]

So how long would it take to get from Earth to there? Seems like it would take a REALLY long time to get there. By then the Earth will be all F-ed up, and we won't be able to check it out. And if the red dwarf is only 1/5th the size of our sun, if folks could get there , they would hope for global warming. Seems like it might be kind of a chilly place....cyrogenics to get there, and to make the temperture comfortable?


If we use the Stargate it will take a few seconds.


Dont ya think its very likely there is a multiverse? The infinitely large to the infinitely small. There could be billions upon billions of infinitesimally small universes floating around your head right now. Looking at the structure of all things, I think its likely that not only should we be seeking intelligent life in the large void but also in the great minute regions of the atomic world. When do things become too large or too small to be seen? If things can be so small that we have no idea that they are there or even that we are made up of them, can not there be things that are so large that we have no idea or comprehension of their existence.


:icon_scra

[mountain_rage]

If we use the Stargate it will take a few seconds.


Dont ya think its very likely there is a multiverse? The infinitely large to the infinitely small. There could be billions upon billions of infinitesimally small universes floating around your head right now. Looking at the structure of all things, I think its likely that not only should we be seeking intelligent life in the large void but also in the great minute regions of the atomic world. When do things become too large or too small to be seen? If things can be so small that we have no idea that they are there or even that we are made up of them, can not there be things that are so large that we have no idea or comprehension of their existence.


:icon_scra

Scientist from numerous countries are trying to prove a multidementional existance by smashing atoms. They are looking for a paticular particle that did not exist before smashing the attoms together. Basically if they find this particle its likely that they can claim parallel dimensions.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Scientist from numerous countries are trying to prove a multidementional existance by smashing atoms. They are looking for a paticular particle that did not exist before smashing the attoms together. Basically if they find this particle its likely that they can claim parallel dimensions.

Will this " intelligent disign" Prove the existence of a "mult God"?

[black_magiic]

So how long would it take to get from Earth to there? Seems like it would take a REALLY long time to get there. By then the Earth will be all F-ed up, and we won't be able to check it out. And if the red dwarf is only 1/5th the size of our sun, if folks could get there , they would hope for global warming. Seems like it might be kind of a chilly place....cyrogenics to get there, and to make the temperture comfortable?

Travelling at the speed of light it would take 28,000 years. The speed of light is around 1,079,252,848.8Km/h or 670,616,629.4 Mph. So it would take an unimaginably long time at current space travel speeds.

[mountain_rage]

We have the capabilities of building a spacecraft that should theoretically travel at half the speed for light. Reching the proper speeds isnt really the problem its numerous other things that happen to reach and during those speeds.

Heres a good article
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9807.htm

[the great one]

I would never trust a man made machine to take me anywhere in space.People can't seem to make trustworthy vehicles,while this isn't as much of a problem when you're on the ground on earth,when you get into space that's a whole other story entirely..

[Mels_Smileys45]

We will never be able to take the long way across space in a ship. It would take too much time that our tiny life spans do not have and our mass would never be able to travel at the speed of light. We will have to use an Einstein-Rosen bridge for far off spave travel. Curved space time tunnels are becoming more accepted by physicists. A "Stargate" may actually be the real way we travel to far off civilizations

[the great one]

I think you're probably right.I think wormholes are the most logical choice if the theory is correct

It's still too early to tell though,but maybe one day it will be possible.It's unlikely to happen in our lifetime though.

[Mels_Smileys45]

I think you're probably right.I think wormholes are the most logical choice if the theory is correct

It's still too early to tell though,but maybe one day it will be possible.It's unlikely to happen in our lifetime though.


Ahhh, unless some far off race has them right now and just hasnt burst into our front lawn yet. This could happen tomorrow. Ive been peeping out my window for years just waitng for them.

[the great one]

Ahhh, unless some far off race has them right now and just hasnt burst into our front lawn yet. This could happen tomorrow. Ive been peeping out my window for years just waitng for them.

You too?:drunken_s

[shawners]

Another useless thing to discover in space.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Another useless thing to discover in space.


Dont like the science eh? One day these useless discoveries may answer many questions about where we fit in this wonderous universe. Who knows what we may find out there. One day the human race will have to move out there or face extinction, could be sooner than you think. I know most people don't worry about that or anything else except how fast their downloads go. Useless people, one day, maybe we'll be rid of them.


Why don't you pick up some of Carl Sagans "Cosmos" series or IMAX "Cosmic Voyage" highly recomended. Maybe you will change your mind, maybe not

[cjules13]

Most people who don't like science are afraid that one day all their religious beliefs will go poof!
Subconsciously at least...


Others would like to spend all the money on social programs that will still fail. There's enough money for both.

[mountain_rage]

Most people who don't like science are afraid that one day all their religious beliefs will go poof!
Subconsciously at least...


Others would like to spend all the money on social programs that will still fail. There's enough money for both.

No matter how much proof science finds against religion people will continue to believe. Religion is really an intersting phenomenon in a social context. Theres no other area of society where someone can say just trust me on this and people will believe them.

[shawners]

The time, energy, money, and resources used could be better saving the human race. How much to launch each shuttle, how much to feed a starving country. Innovate through space, and not the human heart.

Who you think be able to afford the transfer to another planet if thats what everyones suggesting? The rich, and the poor will die here.
I doubt if we see it in our life time. Launching a shuttle to sustain life to go that far out, and return in a lifetime to pick more people up is not gonna happen.

[lifehacker]

The time, energy, money, and resources used could be better saving the human race. How much to launch each shuttle, how much to feed a starving country. Innovate through space, and not the human heart.

Who you think be able to afford the transfer to another planet if thats what everyones suggesting? The rich, and the poor will die here.
I doubt if we see it in our life time. Launching a shuttle to sustain life to go that far out, and return in a lifetime to pick more people up is not gonna happen.

Shawners have you read Deception Point by Dan Brown? Thats partially what the book is about.

[notbob]

The time, energy, money, and resources used could be better saving the human race. How much to launch each shuttle, how much to feed a starving country. Innovate through space, and not the human heart.

Who you think be able to afford the transfer to another planet if thats what everyones suggesting? The rich, and the poor will die here.
I doubt if we see it in our life time. Launching a shuttle to sustain life to go that far out, and return in a lifetime to pick more people up is not gonna happen.

or they'll round up the poor and ship them to the new planet to die

[Auggie2k]

Shawners have you read Deception Point by Dan Brown? Thats partially what the book is about.
Which part?

[kokanezub]

ok see in space death isnt as bad i mean youd freeze instanly so u wouldnt even feel it, only if they can make a craft to work on garbage and waste,wed have a better earth
if i were to take a tree on mars,would it make o2 and live of co2 or would it just die instantly

[Mels_Smileys45]

If we use the "stargate" I invented" everyone who can walk, crawl, be pushed or dragged will get to go to the new home world before the asteroid hits the Earth or the Borg finally get here. We just have to locate a good planet first. Don't want to be popping up on an ice or lava planet.


ok see in space death isnt as bad i mean youd freeze instanly so u wouldnt even feel it


No, I think you pop like a bubble maybe or implode

[kokanezub]

No matter how much proof science finds against religion people will continue to believe. Religion is really an intersting phenomenon in a social context. Theres no other area of society where someone can say just trust me on this and people will believe them.
wont it be weird i no i shouldnt be saying this but i will any way
what if we spent all our life follwing the rules,yet wen we die we just end no soul nothing just a useless body in the ground no heaven no hell, wow wut a wonder,what if were no ones creations but an evolved celluar struckture from something millions of years ago,

[Mels_Smileys45]

Then it wont worry you much when youre gone

[Auggie2k]

Religion is a curtain over of the eyes of people, to explain the things that can't be explained (yet)

[lifehacker]

Which part?

The idea that NASA is just a waste of money which could be used on eductaion is used by the guy trying to become president in the book. The rest of the book is about how a number of people try to save NASA by lying to the public that they found et life. Anyways its a great book.

Religion is a curtain over of the eyes of people, to explain the things that can't be explained (yet)

Yet religion keeps some people from giving up hope and stopping others from commiting crimes. I think that even if a God does not exist religion is still a good thing as long as it does not cause hatred and death for religious reasons.

[kokanezub]

Then it wont worry you much when youre gone
__________________
dont get me wrong mel im a religious beliver(with some exeptionsof a teen age behavior) but i belive in heaven in hell, but wut makes me wonder is why r their so many religions,if it wass all one then it would be more accurite, life is a big mystery with no meaning and no begining and end, if the earth was to end then there would be more life,you think if the earth ends then thats it the whole univeres is a waste, what makes me wonder is WHY is the univers there, why is it doind what it does, its like a big mother breeding lil kids(planets) but who created the universe .the big bang theory? ok who created the nove and the star that combined. what if we are all lil tiny germs on some dog ,any one else thinking like me

[Auggie2k]

The idea that NASA is just a waste of money which could be used on eductaion is used by the guy trying to become president in the book. The rest of the book is about how a number of people try to save NASA by lying to the public that they found et life. Anyways its a great book.

Yet religion keeps some people from giving up hope and stopping others from commiting crimes. I think that even if a God does not exist religion is still a good thing as long as it does not cause hatred and death for religious reasons.
Yes it is, Dan Brown is such a great author. I can't wait for his next publishing.

And on the religion front, it certainly seems to calm people in a sense. The most common solution is the easiest.

But me, I just don't believe it. I'm a man of Science, always have and always will.

[black_magiic]

ok see in space death isnt as bad i mean youd freeze instanly so u wouldnt even feel it, only if they can make a craft to work on garbage and waste,wed have a better earth
if i were to take a tree on mars,would it make o2 and live of co2 or would it just die instantly

I think Im going to lean towards them dying as the climate on mars is quite different as temperatures are pretty extreme if I remember correctly. Scorching temperatures in the day and freezing temperatures in the night. However I could be mistaken and currently Im not in the mood to google it :P

[moneoa]

No, I think you pop like a bubble maybe or implode
Pop

In the absence of an atmosphere to contain it, oxygen in space likes to expand....

[Mels_Smileys45]

kokanezub, its sort o like the old question: Could god create a rock so big he could not lift it? If he couldnt lift it then he is not all powerful but then again if he couldnt create it then he is also not all powerful. Its a simple contradiction but it also leads to the simple answer there is not "one" creater or even a group of gods. That only leads to other contradicitions. Who created them? The only answer that is possible to give at this time is its unknown and beyond our understanding.

[tsafa1]

I wrote an essay on why space travel and collonization is the only hope for the futur of man kind. This was in response to someone who said that the whole space program is a waste of resources and that the money could be better spent somewhere else. I wish to share it with you guys:


The space program is the only thing that can save mankind. 20 years ago there was 4 billion people on the planet now there are 8 billion. In another 20 years there will be 16 billion and in 100 years 128 billion and so on. At some point by the time your children grow up there will be more people on the planet then this planet can support. At that point fammin will be wide spread and people will be dieing of starvation. Of course it would never get to that point because they would start dieing from desise long before that. Who the hell is going to vaccinate 100 billion people. Don't worry it will not get to that point either. Because when I can not feed my children I will try to kill you and your children so that mine may survive. Sorry but that is what happens at the level. I will have to kill off your family and take your food to feed mine. You will be forced to defend yourself or die. Don't try bothering with reasoning or philosophy all that breaks down at that level. In fact when you have 100 billion people on this planet you will not have enough schools so you will be surounded by uneducated savages trying to survive at any cost.

Is this hard to imagine? have you seen how some car workers got durring the ressesion in the 80's that was blammed on Jappanese car imports. i don't know if you were old enough to remeber but they were smashing Japaneese imports with sledge hammers on T.V. That was a reccesion, not a depression! And the depression of the 30's is nothing compared to what you will have with 100 Billion people on the planet.

Of course war's happen on a national level first, not a personal level. Countires will go to war against one another to gain resources. This is natural and has been happening though all history. If sociaties do not split up into national warring factions they will divide along some other lines: racial, ecconomic, geographic or something. Basicly you get two teams and one side tries to kill off the other. The reason why wars start is irrelivant. Some land issue usually, the point is one side wants what the other has and they will find some reason to go to war. When enough people have died and the population has been reduced to a level that the land can support, war stops.


This has happened before in history probably several times. Most recent was the Dark ages of between 600 AD and 1100 AD. I'll give you my spin on it. The European population increases and creates widespread povery and warring. The pope seizes on the opertunities in the East and calls for the first crusade in an attemp to grab more land and export the violence in Europe. The Crusades sudenly stop after the Black Death plague in the 1300's when one quarter of the population dies off. With so many people dead, there is plenty land in Europe. 200 years later the population levels in Europe are up again and they need land. i have no doubt that they would have gone back to the Middle-East except more furtile land is discovered in the Americas. So everyone is off the America. Can you imagine if they had not discoved land in the America's? Take the north,central, south American populations plus Astrailia and dump that back into Europe!!!! Tell me they won't cut each other to peices.

The discovery of land the Americas gave humanity a time extension before the next dark age. We have to find more land and find it fast. There are billions of stars out there, some of them must be suitable. The work NASA is doing is only setting the stage. We can not get to other planets via actual space travel. We can not go faster then the speed of light. Even at light speed it would take 100 thousand years to get to the nearest planet. Even if you could travel 100 times the speed of light, it would take you 100 years. There are however loopholes in time/space that we have bearly scrached the surface of. That is why they are building 100 million dollar particle accelerators in Texas. It is a race to prevent the next Darkage.

I hope I did not dipress anyone. Give your support to NASA for the sake of humanity. So we don't end up burning antique books and arts to keep warm in the next dark age.

[kokanezub]

kokanezub, its sort o like the old question: Could god create a rock so big he could not lift it? If he couldnt lift it then he is not all powerful but then again if he couldnt create it then he is also not all powerful. Its a simple contradiction but it also leads to the simple answer there is not "one" creater or even a group of gods. That only leads to other contradicitions. Who created them? The only answer that is possible to give at this time is its unknown and beyond our understanding.


i know you understand me and what im saying.its weird its like wut came first the chicken or the egg,the chicken? how it is supposed to hatch,how bout the egg..who layed it? ha? see weird questions

[notbob]

I wrote an essay on why space travel and collonization is the only hope for the futur of man kind. This was in response to someone who said that the whole space program is a waste of resources and that the money could be better spent somewhere else. I wish to share it with you guys:


ever hear of carrying capacity? what it means is that exponential growth (as you describe) only can happen where there is a) enough space, b)enough food, and c)no other limiting factors (like predators) should a species move beyond its carrying capacity, it becomes more susceptible to large scale epidemics, mass starvation, etc. which knocks the population down to a sustainable level

there is no shortage of incurable human diseases to wipe out large swaths of the human population at this point

space travel is a waste. while we are reaching a population level that is unsustainable, 95% of that population lives in grinding poverty, and will never see the benefits of space travel, unless they are used as manual labor to build space stations and moon bases for the rich, and even then, they are wage slaves, same as they are here.

as for resources, the richest 5% wastes more resources than the rest of the world even has access to. we drive gas guzzling cars, live in oversized houses, and fill our lives with useless plastic garbage. established industries have no intention of changing to less wasteful systems, nor do the governments that they supply money to. instead of throwing away money on rockets, develop fusion reactors, and cheap fuel cells. make the hydrogen economy happen.

but it won't, because there is no money in it. in a world of infinite energy, there is no profit. oil companies would be obsolete. there would be no electricity or heat bills. hell, you can run cars on alcohol right now. where are the auto makers? they are busy making cars that get the same 19-23 miles per gallonof gas they did in the 1970s

[tsafa1]

There is only another 50 to 150 years of oil left in the ground. Fosil fuels take millions of years to naturaly create. When the fosil fuels run out, we will have no choice but to swich to soemthing else if we have not alreay done so. Fosil fuels will not bring about WWIII. lack of food will. Most people would rather go war then live in crowded conditions. Just look how hostile everyone gets when they are stuck in traffic.

You have to look at the humman factor. yeah perhaps we could all live on top of one another... but even rats living in overpopulatated quarters fight. People will kill, and genocide one another in 150 years if new land is not found.

Also if you are willing to accept starvation as a means of controlling human population, why not invest in the space program just in case it bares fruit. Your means of population control seem far more cruel and inhumman.

[CRLocky]

Your means of population control seem far more cruel and inhumman.

Don't be ignorant to the fact that Notbob's "means" of population control, are actually happening everyday.

Don't be a hypocrite to the fact that what you're suggesting, would end suffering worldwide, when in actuality we'd just be spending our money on a different profitable technological advancement.

Hundreds of thousands die because rich people believe money is well spent on luxurious materials rather than spent on supportive measures to help halt the continuation of poverty.

Would you believe:
10% of White population, own 80% of this countries(U.S.) assets? A professor of mine threw that statistic at the class.

http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.htm (from 98 I believe)

[notbob]

Also if you are willing to accept starvation as a means of controlling human population, why not invest in the space program just in case it bares fruit. Your means of population control seem far more cruel and inhumman.

that's sort of my point

what does space travel do to fix overpopulation or starvation? nothing. it only funnels money away from the problems that need to be solved first

[notbob]

Would you believe:
10% of White population, own 80% of this countries(U.S.) assets? A professor of mine threw that statistic at the class.

http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.htm (from 98 I believe)


actually, by the numbers you gave on the link, 5% control 59.4% of the wealth. that's even scarier since with wealth comes political power

[CRLocky]

actually, by the numbers you gave on the link, 5% control 59.4% of the wealth. that's even scarier since with wealth comes political power

It is extremely scary... I'm sure it has grown, I know some of that stuff is outdated a few years.

In 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals in the "Forbes 400" owned $92 billion. By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.

How does Bill Gates' wealth compare to the rest of the population?

Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the bottom 40% of U.S. households.


Isn't that interesting?

Personally, I make $10 dollars an hour. That's roughly $25,000 a year. Quite honestly, I get by happily, I'm able to live with that...

BUT $25,000 A YEAR. AND HE HAS $40 BILLION DOLLARS. Jesus Christ....

[Atheist Icon]

space travel is a waste. while we are reaching a population level that is unsustainable, 95% of that population lives in grinding poverty, and will never see the benefits of space travel, unless they are used as manual labor to build space stations and moon bases for the rich, and even then, they are wage slaves, same as they are here.

as for resources, the richest 5% wastes more resources than the rest of the world even has access to. we drive gas guzzling cars, live in oversized houses, and fill our lives with useless plastic garbage. established industries have no intention of changing to less wasteful systems, nor do the governments that they supply money to. instead of throwing away money on rockets, develop fusion reactors, and cheap fuel cells. make the hydrogen economy happen.

but it won't, because there is no money in it. in a world of infinite energy, there is no profit. oil companies would be obsolete. there would be no electricity or heat bills. hell, you can run cars on alcohol right now. where are the auto makers? they are busy making cars that get the same 19-23 miles per gallonof gas they did in the 1970s

Space travel is a waste in our lifetime because we will not see any immediate benefits. I agree with you.

The rich will always control because they have the money to do so. They use more resources, live in bigger houses, drive more gas guzzling cars because, again, they have the money.

Hydrogen will come into play, once the oil reserves are depleted.

Cold/Hot fusion reactors...yeah, they be available as soon as we build a base on the moon or Mars.

Alcohol powered vehicles aren't as easy as people think. You need 2 gallons of alchol to have the same power of a gallon of gas. So you're going to need a fuel tank and injectors to handle twice the volume as gas or you'll just have to fill up at half the distance.

67,000 Btus = energy in 1 gallon of ethanol
125,000 Btus = energy in 1 gallon of gasoline

My car is already a Lead Sled at 4200 lbs without me in it and a 19 gal fuel(gas) tank. My car would be 4328 lbs 38 gal without me in it. I'm trying to put it on a diet as it is...alcohol just makes it harder.

Now, lets go with hydrogen power vs gasoline power.

60,000 Btus = energy released in burning 1 lb of hydrogen
125,000 Btus = energy in 1 gallon of gasoline

125,000/6(pounds in a gallon) = 20833.3 Btus released in burning 1lb of gasoline

Considering that most vehicles on the road only use 25% of the total power of gasoline, I would have to say the same thing would have with hydrogen power.

Yes, hydrogen does have a higher power release than gasoline. But, I don't know...I am already apprihensive as it is have a 19 gal tank strapped to my ass with that much explosive power, i would hate to have quadrouple that power...i mean, look at the Hindenburg.

People think Pinto's were notorious with explosions with rear end collisions, just quadrouple it with every car on the road.

[soulxtc]

space travel is a waste. while we are reaching a population level that is unsustainable, 95% of that population lives in grinding poverty......

Amen, what like 5.5 of the 6 billion people in this worls live on less than a dollar a day? And we're talking about sending people to Mars, at a cost of what, a hundred billion or so? How about sending people some cash for food instead. Mars schamrs. We'll just piss off them little green Martian bastards anyways and then they'll wanna invade Earth in retribution...........

[notbob]

Yes, hydrogen does have a higher power release than gasoline. But, I don't know...I am already apprihensive as it is have a 19 gal tank strapped to my ass with that much explosive power, i would hate to have quadrouple that power...i mean, look at the Hindenburg.

People think Pinto's were notorious with explosions with rear end collisions, just quadrouple it with every car on the road.


the problem with the hindenburgh was the naptha soaked skin and wood frame (and the paint was chemically similar to rocket fuel). the hydrogen would have burned off or floated away almost instantly

some interesting reading here http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm

even with helium, the hindenburgh would have probably burned up

Regardless of much speculation, translation of a letter handwritten in German on June 28, 1937, by Hindenburg investigator and electrical engineer Otto Beyersdorff states "The actual cause of the fire was the extreme easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature ..." Recently, NASA investigator Dr. Addison Bain has verified this finding by scientific experiments that duplicated the vigorous ignition by static discharge to the aluminum powder filled covering material. Spectacular colors of this type of combustion were produced from the burning skin of the giant airship. Dr. Bain concluded that the Hindenburg would have burned and crashed even if helium would have been used as the lifting gas. Dr. Bain noted that the particular type of aluminum powder particles, which are flake like in shape, are particularly sensitive to electrical discharge.

Hydrogen is about fifteen-times lighter than air. After ignition by the violently burning surface varnish, flames from hydrogen combustion traveled upward, far away from the crew and passengers in the cabins below. What fell to the ground with the passengers were burning shrouds from the exterior fabric, a large inventory of diesel fuel, and combustible materials that were in the cabins. Thirty-three persons were killed in the Hindenburg fire. The flames that continued to be supported by heavier-than-air materials, fabric and diesel fuel continued for hours.

[tsafa1]

that's sort of my point

what does space travel do to fix overpopulation or starvation? nothing. it only funnels money away from the problems that need to be solved first


The point of space travel is that one day we will be able to collonize other planets rather then have to fight each other for land. Can you imagin what would have happened if Europeans had not discovered land in the America's. Supose there was no land. Take the population of north, central and south America and add it to Europe's population. What do you think the population in Europe, Asia and Affrica would be. My guess is the same. The Europeans probobly would have expanded into Affrica and killed all the Affricans and made room for themselves. Lucky for the Affrican's they found a more furtile place to go and conquor. Of course when they came to the America's they had to illiminate the population there.

The point of space research is to find a new similar to Earth and hopfully unpopulated to continue to breed like roaches rather then kill one another.

[The Hunter]

Just great we are thinking of screwing up other worlds, before we have figured out how to fix the mess we made here. We need to fix the system here, before we go messing around in other worlds.

[notbob]

The point of space travel is that one day we will be able to collonize other planets rather then have to fight each other for land. Can you imagin what would have happened if Europeans had not discovered land in the America's. Supose there was no land. Take the population of north, central and south America and add it to Europe's population. What do you think the population in Europe, Asia and Affrica would be. My guess is the same. The Europeans probobly would have expanded into Affrica and killed all the Affricans and made room for themselves. Lucky for the Affrican's they found a more furtile place to go and conquor. Of course when they came to the America's they had to illiminate the population there.

The point of space research is to find a new similar to Earth and hopfully unpopulated to continue to breed like roaches rather then kill one another.


ever hear of the boer wars? uganda? cote 'd ivoire? the slave trade? debeers?

they didn't kill africans for land, they kill them for resources, or worse, put in puppet governments and let them kill themselves, or use them for proxy wars

you have absolutely no idea what happened in world history, do you?

how do you create a space colony? you start with earth resources. if earth's last option is to move to space, where will those resources come from? who gets to go? what happens to the people left behind? will the people rich enough to make the trip have the practical skills to create a new world? will they learn from the mistakes we made here?

you obviously haven't really devoted much thought to the subject, sort of like the essay that you didn't deem worthy of a spellcheck

[Mels_Smileys45]

How can we fix the trouble for everyone? Total control of peoples lives maybe?Some people are poor and some are rich. Some work and some live their lives drunk in an alley. Some are fortunate and others arent. Asking the government to prop up everyone who doesnt want to work or feed the world is asking too much from them. They send billions in aid all around the world. What do we do personlly? When is the last ime you gave a bum a dollar, a hot meal or even a smile? When is the last time you avioded a bum or locked your car door when you see someone less fortunate?


Please someone solve the problem! (besides me, i got better things to do like make an avatar on my pc or download some porno) Oh yeah, that works. We all wait for david blain to take care of it so we can somehow feel better about what (we) did to help them out. Figure out what you can do to help your fellow man out and stop blaming everyone one except every single one of us who do nothing. We all probably have more half eaten food in our garbage than some other coutries families see in a week. Its all the space programs fault with all their fancy satellites and shit. uh huh sounds good

[maquereautin]

Travelling at the speed of light it would take 28,000 years. The speed of light is around 1,079,252,848.8Km/h or 670,616,629.4 Mph. So it would take an unimaginably long time at current space travel speeds.
We will never be able to take the long way across space in a ship. It would take too much time that our tiny life spans do not have and our mass would never be able to travel at the speed of light. We will have to use an Einstein-Rosen bridge for far off spave travel. Curved space time tunnels are becoming more accepted by physicists. A "Stargate" may actually be the real way we travel to far off civilizations

I dont know for sure when it was, or what the name of the experiment was, but a few years after we reached the speed of sound, scientists put a atomic clock in a jet and had the jet do the speed of sound. If you know about atomic clocks, they lose about 0.000001 of a second after about a million years or so. They had another atomic clock on the ground that was 100% in sync with the one in the jet.
When they compaired the two, the one in the jet was slower than the one on the ground. I do not know for sure how far it was off, but they theorized that if the speed of the jet reached the speed of light, in theory time its self would stop for that object. So really if this is true, it we did get to the speed of light, or half the speed of light, we could go alot farther than we think we can go.

[tsafa1]

I dont know for sure when it was, or what the name of the experiment was, but a few years after we reached the speed of sound, scientists put a atomic clock in a jet and had the jet do the speed of sound. If you know about atomic clocks, they lose about 0.000001 of a second after about a million years or so. They had another atomic clock on the ground that was 100% in sync with the one in the jet.
When they compaired the two, the one in the jet was slower than the one on the ground. I do not know for sure how far it was off, but they theorized that if the speed of the jet reached the speed of light, in theory time its self would stop for that object. So really if this is true, it we did get to the speed of light, or half the speed of light, we could go alot farther than we think we can go.

I am very familiar with the test. The purpose of it is to varify Einstines theory on Specific Relativity. Is shows how acceleration or deceleration effects time/space. Time actualy accelerated for the clock in motion. This happens at any level. If you have one car going at 30 mph and one car going in the same direction at 70 mph. The difrence in speed is not a perfect 50. It is 49.9999999999999999999999999and then some because of the time/space distortion. At higher speeds this diffrence becomes more noticable.

Incedently that difference between the clock on the ground andthe clock in the jet needed to be adusted by some further calculations in order to do a pefect accounting. You see acceleration is not the only thing that effects time/space, gravity does too. The gravitational effect on the earth clock is much stronger then the earths gravetational effect jet clock. Gravity slowes down time. This is Einstines theory of General Relativity. So the earths gravity slightly offset the effect on time/space by the acceleration of the jet.

You can see this more clearly illustrated durring a solar eqlips when the moon passes in front of the sun. Normaly you can not see the stars around the sun because the sun is too bright. You also know that from our prospective the stars do not move (they do but you can't tell with normal telescopes). Durring the solor eclipse is the only time you can see the stars around the sun. It is only durring this time that they appear in a diffrent position. What is happening is the suns great gravetational field is bending the time/space near it. The star has not moved and the light from the star is traveling in a staight lind to you. But the space that it is passing through has bent. The shortest path between two points is no longer the Euclidian straight line.

This is all relevent to space travel and space colonization. It means that time/space can be manipulated. It may be posible to create wormholes and space gates that will instantly move you accross the galaxy.

With regard to getting anywhere by achieving near light speed. Consider that the closest planet is more then 100,000 light years away. If you could tranvel the speed of light it you take you 100,000 years to get there. Even after you factor in the time/space distortion of acceleration, the fastest you could get there is at best 50,000 years.

Just incase anyone was wondering, in plain terms, the reason you can not go faster then the speed of light is because as a mass aquires kenetic energy it gains additional mass. This is true for any mass including a baseball. The ball is slightly heavier in flight then at rest. I'm not talking about momentum, I mean the accual mass of the object. The faster it moves the more mass it gains. So as you start to approch the speed of light you mass start to get higher and higher, you have to keep applying more force to overcome your ever increasing mass. Basicly you are chassing your tail. You can not overcome you infinelty incresing mass with sufficient force to reach the speed of light.

Hope nobody fell asleep on their keyboard.

[Bytronix]

If time can be infinite, why can't space also be infinite?

Space is infinite.

[tsafa1]

I just thought I might clarify what is the big deal about light speed. Lets say you are have two cars traveling on the same highway in the same direction, one at 50 mph, the other at 100 mph. From their relative perspectives, one is going 50 mph slower and the other is going 50 mph faster right. That's simple. Now if you are traveling in opposite directions again at 50 and 100 mph. from their perspectives they are traving at 150 mph relative to each other. Ok, so you understand that simple physics.

Now consider those two cars traveling in the same direction, one at the speed of light and the other at half the speed of light. Earlier in the example gave we took the diffrence of their speeds to determin their relative speeds. We can not do that now. From either prospective, the car moving at the speed of light is still moving at the speed of light. Now if the cars are moving in opposite direction, again the car moving at the speed of light isonly moving at the speed of light. We do not add their speeds together as we did at slower speeds.

How do we know this. The earth is moving through space around the sun at about 22,000 mph, if i did my math correct, if not its some fast speed. Some stars are in fron of us and some behind us. The light from the stars in front of us is traveling at us at the same speed as the light from the stars behind us. How is this so if you are moving foward at a fast speed. The answer is that time/space changes as you start to approch the speed of light.

The equation I stated earlier was a simple (speed 50 +speed100) = speed 150. When you approch light speed it turns to (speed 50 + speed 100) = speed 100
or (speed 100 - speed 50 ) = speed 100

What I wrote makes no mathematical sence. Einstine said the same thing. He was the first to guess that there was a variable missing. That variable is the effect of space/time. So the equations should look like this (speed 50 + speed 100 - (space/time distortion) = speed 100)
or (speed 100 - speed 50 + (speed/ time distortion) = speed 100)

These are not einstines actual formulas. They are much more complicated. But this will help you understand what he is prooving. You may not be able to prove it mathematicly, but you now understand the concept of "time dilation and space contraction".

[kokanezub]

this is like darwins theory of evelution and that one guy who went to trial for it..wuts his name he had to pay 100$ fine for teaching it in the 1920's

[MrBag]

they also peered into the big bang

[fleecy]

this is like darwins theory of evelution and that one guy who went to trial for it..wuts his name he had to pay 100$ fine for teaching it in the 1920's

scopes......

[tsafa1]

this is like darwins theory of evelution and that one guy who went to trial for it..wuts his name he had to pay 100$ fine for teaching it in the 1920's


ummm, the guys name was Einsine. He did win some awards for his work. And the theory has been proven by various experiments. I did mention two of them in my prior posts. See that whole thing about the two atomic clocks and the soler eqlips.

When most people think of Einstine they somehow think neclear bombs. Einstine had very little to do with nuclear bombs. Neclear theory was contained within his work but does not center on it.

E=MC^2 pertains to all matter. All matter can be conveted into energy. It just so happens that uranium is very unstable and is relativly easy to convert. It means that if take any matter and convert it 100% into energy, the energy released will be equal to its mass muliplied by the square root of light speed. So far we can only convert unstable material like uranium and the conversion to energy is only 1% , but if you invent some method of converting other material such as a "pea" or a "paper clip" 100% into energy, it would release an enourmous amount of energy. Enough power a whole city for a day. Nuclear reactions are only 1% efficient. If you measure uranium before a neclear reaction and then again after you will find that only 1% of its mass is missing. 99% remains as neclear waste. This is still thousands of times more efficient then chemical reactions such as burning. The only way to get a 100% reaction at present is to mix matter with anti-matter. This has been proven too. In those billion doller facilities, they take a single proton (positive charge) and single elecron (negetive charge) and combine them. The result is they completly disapear into nothingness and their is a 100% release of pure energy. Pre-Einstine it was held that mater is neither created nor distroyed but converted from one form to another. Post Einstine it can be converted into pure energy too.

[GaladrieI]

Just great we are thinking of screwing up other worlds, before we have figured out how to fix the mess we made here. We need to fix the system here, before we go messing around in other worlds.

AMEN Brother!

Lets head to yet another planet and degrade its ozone layer with polluting carbon emissions and fill it full with trash and waste... C'mon guys, It will be fun!

[kokanezub]

AMEN Brother!

Lets head to yet another planet and degrade its ozone layer with polluting carbon emissions and fill it full with trash and waste... C'mon guys, It will be fun!

to be truthful...who cares itll last another 6 thousand years...i mean its just going to waste in SPACE not like its mother nature and wee need to take care of it its just a rock y not use it then let it go to waste

[notbob]

ummm, the guys name was Einsine. He did win some awards for his work. And the theory has been proven by various experiments. I did mention two of them in my prior posts. See that whole thing about the two atomic clocks and the soler eqlips.

When most people think of Einstine they somehow think neclear bombs. Einstine had very little to do with nuclear bombs. Neclear theory was contained within his work but does not center on it.

[drivel].

umm, no it wasn't. i realize how tempting it can be to pontificate on things you can't even spell right, but try to resist the urge

[lil_amb]

umm, no it wasn't. i realize how tempting it can be to pontificate on things you can't even spell right, but try to resist the urge

:icon_chee :icon_chee :icon_chee